Are there any posters here that are directly involved? I think that would be much more interesting to openly hear from those directly involved. Board members? Those with direct knowledge?? Please shed more light of possible.

I'm in the northeast, so I don't think I get much of a say in what happens in Texas. However, just like most people think that all triathlons are ironmans, so too do regular people think that USAT is all triathletes. So now any usat member is lumped in with spousal abuse to the general public.

And here's my curiosity:

• You're seemingly undisturbed by Jack's crime.
• You're undisturbed by the board electing him treasurer.
• You're undisturbed by the board not reconsidering after the Ray Rice thing blew up, and public sentiment on the topic became clear.
• But you're extremely disturbed about the usat membership learning of this issue. You'd prefer it be locked away in backroom discussions and deal making, perhaps?
  

Are you also disturbed that at least two board members reversed their position after being contacted by the Tribune? If they felt so strongly that Jack was the right choice for Treasurer, why did they reverse course once their decision was to be made public? Were they embarrassed to stand behind it? Is there a quid pro quid that's about to be exposed?

You're on the usat Women's Committee, whose mission is "....mentoring professional growth for women in the sport of triathlon. The Women’s Committee is concentrating on the quality of training as well as opportunities available for women in positions of authority and decision-making within associations that govern the sport."

Have you considered how many women may not want to serve in an organization next to a man who's a convicted batterer of women? That maybe they'd feel a bit intimidated about saying the wrong thing to him?

Have you considered that your support for him goes completely against the mission you've sworn to uphold? Have you considered that you yourself should also resign because you're obviously incompetent at your position?

These are my curiosities.

Debating semantics & which words are most appropriate really doesn't appeal to me. You're correct in the definition of "witch" though.

Not saying he is innocent, I don't think there's anyone saying that, including Jack. Something happened at their home behind closed doors, she was bruised, he was accused & found guilty, he accepted punishment & has done everything the courts thought he needed to do to "pay for his crime." He'll spend the rest of his life making it up to his wife & doing whatever she thinks he needs to do to make up for it. He has come on this board & said just as much as I have in those prior two sentences. That's the extent that any of that particular incident is any of our business.

As I said in my first post on this thread, while I don't condone what he did - I don't know the details & don't want/need to, but...I'm personally willing to accept that Jack has made a mistake & is doing what he needs to do to be a better person so that nothing along those lines ever happens again. And that is exactly the type of person I'm willing to have represent me - someone who is willing to do the work to make our sport the best it can be, while striving to do the same for him/herself. People make mistakes, do really damn stupid things....but I doubt that you'd find someone else as passionate, as hard-working or who has given more to our sport over the past 30-40yrs as Jack Weiss (& his wife Ester)...and I'm willing to see all the other things that he has done, which is a HELLUVA lot more than most of us on this board calling for his resignation, and accept that mistake as just that.

I don't think anyone has made any efforts to hide anything from me as far as what happened nor do I expect the BoD to shout from the rooftops any time a USAT representative commits some crime. They are elected to represent my best interests, I have voted with the intent of such & I live with the results of said elections. I expect them to handle things according to the bylaws that we, as members & athletes, have also had the chance to create, review, amend & approve. So if there's a question of conduct or culpability - I expect that they've heard of any issues & that they have addressed them. And the board has acted to rectify issues in the past when it has seen conduct from one of it's members that it considers detrimental & dangerous to the federation as a whole. That is the responsibility that I, again personally, feel that I have placed on the BoD.

My point is that I'm damn glad that the ST board doesn't serve as an actual jury - because we're generally the most unforgiving sonsabitches I've ever seen, ready to condemn & damn anyone with a different opinion at any given time - whether it be aerodynamics or personal accountability. Righteous, lily white set of folks we have here.....the ballot should be overflowing in the South region next election. And the number of votes countrywide shall be astonishing...

To the person that was stratifying the level of hell that each "class" should be relegated to....don't forget to distinguish "wife cheaters" from "race cheaters"....I'm pretty sure most of this board would place Finman in a MUCH higher level than some mere adulterer, while TentPisser gets off easy...just so we're clear.

---

AW

I'm pretty sure coaches that fire people not wearing a trucker hat and people in gorilla suits are right up there.

You did not answer a number of the questions. Did board members change their position as an example?

I did a recall a few years back on my HOA BOD. It was not easy getting the signatures. I was attacked over and over again by these board members.
But at least I had the ethics to follow the process and allow our entire membership to vote on their behavior.

Based on new information on board members being made aware to the USAT membership, I would love to see the entire board have a recall against them
all and let the members, with these new facts, vote again if they think these folks are the best to represent our sport. If the majority say yes, I guess you are right.
If not, well, ....

And the reason I say all if I would not want to single out a certain person. Seems a number might have some things they are done that maybe the membership would
not want a change, or maybe not. Dan, this is the best solution of any I see. Let the folks who pay the bills decide.

.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

You honestly think the general public has any clue what usat is?

Nope. But they have an idea of what triathlon is.

Think most public knows what UCI is? But they know cycling.

First, I'm no longer a member of the Women's Committee. I'm simply not able to devote the time & energy that the group deserves. If my name still shows on any lists, well it just goes to show that our USAT employees are a bit swamped with work on the updating of things. But that's a little irrelevant. Just so we're clear, that doesn't mean that I don't believe in the mission of the committee, the work they do or that I will not help whenever/however/wherever I can. I believe in the mission wholeheartedly & if you think otherwise then you don't know me.

While we're discussing incompetency, let's discuss reading comprehension. In no post do I condone what happened. In my opinion, it's unforgivable. Lucky for Jack, I'm not his wife. Thus, I really consider it none of my business outside of whether he has satisfied what the courts asked him to do & whether his wife has forgiven him.

I cheated on a boyfriend in college, repeatedly. I broke that kid's heart. I cheated on another guy I was serious with years later. That seriously hurt him, too. I lost both of those relationships. Funny thing is, I learned that I was an asshole & I quit doing asshole things. I cannot imagine doing such a thing as cheating now, but I can't undo that I did at one time. In no way am I equating the two - my brain doesn't work that way - I'm just saying that people make mistakes & they grow from them. I am the type of person willing to give someone another chance at re-earning/keeping my respect. I'm basing my thoughts/opinions/feelings on Jack's wife & who I know Jack Weiss is.

You are correct in that I'm not disturbed by our Board not reconsidering their actions based on the fickle tide that is public sentiment. As Dan has stated elsewhere, I believe in due process and that a Board should proceed very carefully and with great consideration matters such as this. Knee-jerk reactions because of things happening elsewhere (in other sports, countries, etc.) may not be the best course of action. Incidents/people/actions should be considered independently. Otherwise women in America might be required to wear burkas because a Muslim that happened to get elected at the right time thought it was a good idea....I certainly have little opinion on the fickle opinions of the Board Members - especially those that selectively choose what to read and/or pay attention to. They had the information prior to the Tribune report, the Board was made aware of the whole debacle & had multiple discussions around it.

That's what I have issue with - that someone pointed out an article written a week ago & suddenly we're hunting down a member that's done everything that the Court & the Board has asked of him. Now it's a "mob mentality" (is that preferable to "witch hunt"?) to drag him to the town square & stone him. The masses didn't know about the issue because it isn't pertinent to the sport. The Board - whom you all elected, fair & square - had the knowledge & took the action.

Correct on another point, I don't think the fact that he hit his wife has any bearing on Jack's ability to act as a treasurer for USAT. Had he imbezzled, had a gambling problem or be drowning in debt, that would be a different feeling - money management would obviously be shit then. Do I think he was a really bad guy for at least one night - yeah. I don't think they took away his calculator because of that. Treasurers keep financial bearing. Jack's been a passionate steward of the sport for 30+years - who better to be heavily involved in the financial future of the organization? He's not my moral compass, he's a steward of the federation & the sport. He's not my personal representative & certainly not my marriage counselor, he's someone I trust to do what's best for triathlon in the US. Nothing more, nothing less.

Any woman that doesn't want to serve next to Jack or is afraid of him doesn't know him, that simple. If you base your entire opinion of someone based on one action/series of actions/incident/whatever - there'd be a LOT of people on this board with no friends. A kid ran out in front of my car when I was in school (his dad grounded him for a month because he ran out in front of my car, he watched him), kid had a gnarly concussion & a scraped arm. Should I have gone to jail or never be allowed to parent for child endangerment? I once punched a guy that called me fat & ugly - should I have divulged that & not been allowed to be on the Women's Committee or considered for the BoD?

I've been drugged, beaten & raped. Don't you DARE tell me that I don't understand my mission, what this sport embodies or what humanity is capable of. I understand that mission - and this incident - probably better than the VAST majority of people that have posted anything on this thread. I support that people make mistakes, that Jack Weiss is human & I also believe that the USA Triathlon Board of Directors is really insignificant in the grand scheme of life & humanity.


Maybe my fault is that I don't have more of my personal identity vested in the people on the Board of USAT or in triathlon as a whole. It's a hobby, a sport, a diversion, it's fun & it connects me to the ability to empower & enable the people (men & women) around me to be better, to do better and to think bigger.

---

AW

As Nordic pointed out before this is once again a logical fallacy.



Do you own a car? Cars have killed people, based on what you claim the general population now considers you a murderer.

If I recall correctly, referring to ones arms, vice ones legs, as guns may be a violation of the rules.

I love it when people want to sound smart so they throw out "logical fallacy". Doesn't work for every situation.

Do most people now, especially this website, think that most cyclists are dopers?

Are more cyclists getting criticize as a whole by the car drivers getting upset?

There is a generalization that happens when someone in a niche group gets found of doing something wrong. We are a niche group.

I'm not stating that I'm absolutely correct, more that I'm tired of people pretending to be more evolved by throwing out "logic fallacy" whenever possible.

Yes, public sentiment can be fickle. But the duty of board members is to represent that public, and their sometimes-fickle sentiments. If, in September after the Ray Rice thing blew up, the board had said, "oops, we blew it, we maybe were out of touch with our membership's sentiments about domestic violence, let's reconsider if we should've elected Jack treasurer," I would give kudos. They'd have acknowledged a potential mistake, and then reconsidered it. Maybe even taken an informal poll of the membership: "hey, usat members, is it important to you that a convicted wife beater represents you and serves as treasurer? Are usat members different than nfl fans? Maybe you don't care?"

But no. They soldiered on with their decision. Either arrogantly confident that nobody cared, or perhaps embarrassed by their decision and hoping nobody would find out.

But alas, the membership has found out. And at least 2 board members have since switched positions on Jack being treasurer. And I want to know, why make one decision in secret, but switch sides when the decision is made public? That's what I find dishonorable. Operating one way behind closed doors, but taking another tack when exposed to the bright light of public scrutiny. That's what I find cowardly.

And as for your certainty that "the masses" don't know what is and isn't pertinent to the sport--that's the attitude I expect from entrenched officials who don't care about members' opinions and value, as the officials are certain they alone know what's best.. I believe it's called the god complex.

And, like in your response to my earlier post, you missed the point. But, keep on going with the 'don't understand' witch hunt' business. It's serving you well.

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

Yes, it's still listed on the usat website, here.

And the fact that the board and employees are too distracted and overwhelmed by other issues to take care of basic website maintenance maybe proves our point that having Jack present is interfering with the basic functioning of the organization?

"So, what happened between April and October? Ray Rice, and public outrage over the nfl's treatment of that case.... But apparently that wasn't enough for this board to ask for a resignation... Apparently it took the Chicago Tribune asking about the case. In other words, once light was shone on the board, once the public became informed, the board became embarrassed of its action in April, and is trying to backpedal."

all good questions. i don't know the answers, but i suspect i suspect jack convinced a majority of the board that he was remorseful; that he'd taken all the required steps and beyond; and that esther was strongly supportive of his continuing in his position as treasurer. when you've known someone for decades, and he's generally a very capable board member (or employee, team member, whatever) it's very hard to buck that. would i have voted the same way as the board majority? i don't know and it's just impossible to say. what i do know is that i'm not on the board. i didn't run for the board. they did. you didn't. i didn't. they are the ones serving, as volunteers. i don't want to seem harsh, but, what comes to mind is, i suggest you stand a post; otherwise...

again, i don't mean this to sound as if i approve of their vote choice. or that i disapprove of your asking reasonable questions. rather, that i just can't find it in my heart to criticize their vote choice, since i haven't taken up a weapon and i'm not standing a post.

you're right. if jack's behavior warrant leaving the board or not being treasurer after they were known, they should have meant that before they were known. i agree with that absolutely. i still am not going to criticize the board members for the vote they took. they did not vote the way they did out of bad motive.

one other thing: what is being placed forward is the thesis that the 5 members supportive of the olympic athlete and development side knew about jack's spousal battery and voted against him being treasurer accordingly. in reality, there's a long-standing animosity between jack and this bloc. if any of those voting against jack as treasurer were prepared to vote for him, but changed their vote after the revelation of jack's offense, i'm happy to have that person post here and disabuse me of my ignorance.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

If you've ever watched how often the committee info is updated, you'd know this isn't a current issue - it's a long-standing source of entertainment. The HolyShiv! ad has been probably been more recent.Plus it wasn't so much an official "dropping of the mike" as much as it was slowly fading to black & no longer replying to emails or calling in to calls, then a "I'm not doing this justice" email. The website monkeys probably haven't been notified as those updates really only happen once a year when the elections/appointments are all updated. I'd rather chalk that up to relevant priorities & people working on things that actually matter. I wouldn't say they're too "distracted & overwhelmed" any more than I'd say I intentionally let those women & my region down by not fully devoting all my attention to those activities.

I stand by my opinions that I don't want my Board responding in knee-jerk fashion to public opinions/outcries. As we the general membership aren't privy to all of the near constant exchange of communication that the Board has via email & phone discussions, not to mention not attending their meetings, we don't know how much has/hasn't been considered or discussed. I'm less likely than most, apparently, to jump to the conclusion that this has all been kept "secret" and "behind closed doors" in order to not make themselves look one way or the other. I'd like to think our Board isn't as concerned about saving face in the comparison with other sports as they are with making sure our ship is pointed in the right direction.

We've established that my opinion & perspective is slightly different than the majority here, though. Carry on with the torches & pitchforks...

---

AW

HA

--
You are exactly right. The 5 board members would not have voted for Jack even if he didn't abuse his wife. But of course that isn't the point. The point is that 7 members with full knowledge of his transgressions and with full knowledge that he breached USAT's Code of Ethics and Conduct, voted for him. That is the head scratcher.

Your point is exactly what our HOA lawyers have told our board during a recall on them twice in the last 6 years. They were told just ignore folks that ask questions, do not respond to them. They will lose steam
and go away and become quiet. The only real power is the board. The ONLY power the membership has with any board that the board cannot control is a recall. Members at my HOA have done a recall process twice.
Both times they failed. Why, in our case, the older folks who are getting subsidized golf and food just love this, so they have no reason to boot them out. They do not care what debt is being left behind because they will be dead.

Do USAT members really care about the board? If they did, why have not new folks run instead of a lot of the same folks who love the power? Every person I know that has gotten on our board because they did not like what was going on basically went to the dark side once they got on and did the same stuff they were complaining about.

This is why I just smile on this. A few love to talk, but so so few in life will stand up, be counted, and take action. Just seeing some folks who give opinions on all other topics be totally quiet on this one says a lot.

.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

I'd also like to add people that use an excess of "----" or "_____" to make horizontal lines instead of using the horizontal rule tag

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

"You are exactly right. The 5 board members would not have voted for Jack even if he didn't abuse his wife. But of course that isn't the point."

i don't think it's the point, as in the only point, but i do think it's one point. your involvement on this thread is not out of sympathy for battered wives. you have an agenda. you are on the side of the olympic-style elites. were i to list what are in my opinion the bad behaviors of this cohort, it's a persuasive list. using jack's spousal abuse as a lever for these athletes to get what they want is, in my opinion, low. jack's behavior ought to be scrutinized by his constituents and the membership as a whole, but, not used by one side to get what it wants out of the federation.

john, if you want to have a voice on this board, run for the board. or you can do what i did. start your own organization narrowly focused on the needs of a specific cohort of triathlon stakeholders USAT only very broadly serves. yes, there is dysfunction now occurring on the board, that is perennially occurring on this board, and it certainly didn't begin with jack committing spousal battery. the dysfunction existed long before, continues today, and some good men and women are trying to fix it. one way to support your federation is to acknowledge that these folks are stepping up while you and i step back.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

"Do USAT members really care about the board? If they did, why have not new folks run instead of a lot of the same folks who love the power?"

when lew kidder and i stepped in and rewrote the bylaws that govern elections, regions and terms, back in 2004, what we wrote in were: 1 year terms; fairly stern term limits; a requirement that the changing of any of these bylaws require a vote of the entire membership. now we have 4 year terms. more lax term limits. which required a vote of the entire membership.

we wrote it the way we wrote it for a reason. if you all liked it the way we originally wrote it then the membership should think harder before it gives board members whatever they want when they place resolutions in front of you.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

--
I do have an agenda. My agenda is to remove board members that have lost the confidence of the membership. Yours?

"I do have an agenda. My agenda is to remove board members that have lost the confidence of the membership. Yours?"

my agenda is the same as it always has been, since my first triathlon in 1977, my first swim/bike/run tri in 1980, and my first ironman in 1981. my agenda remained unchanged during my founding and building of quintana roo, starting in 1986, and in founding slowtwitch in 1999. that agenda is to spread the word of the great sport of triathlon; to make it more accessible and more enjoyable for my fellow compatriots; and for impediments to its growth and enjoyment to be removed as far as is practicable.

USAT, nee trifed, was formed in the mid 1980s by verne scott, john noll and others chiefly as an industry cooperative to give race directors comfort, stability, accessibility as regards a liability insurance plan, and to provide a framework for rules and officials. in that sense USAT's mission and mine were pretty closely aligned. because of that, for a number of years every wetsuit i made bore a hang tag asking our customers to "support your local federation," at no charge to the federation. i went on to host, while still running quintana roo, USAT's first draft-legal series around the country, and USAT's national pro championships - i believe i hosted some of the earliest draft legal national champs.

my hope is that the federation will still fulfill its original mission while making a reasonable effort to uphold its duties as a daughter federation of the USOC. however, i think these dual roles cause USAT to focus less on its original mission to be an industry cooperative, so one agenda i have is for an organization i founded with 2 dozen other companies, triathlon business intl, to work in parallel with USAT and other governing bodies, shoring up the gap in services to RDs, media, manufacturers, etc.

if that bloc represented by olympic athletes demonstrates to me that they want to fulfill both these missions, and can work effectively with organizations like TBI, and seem to have the best set of policies and vision, i'm happy to throw my support behind solidly them, in strong and substantive ways. just, i would like to see them shy from tactics like trying to stack the general director slots with olympic athlete sympathizers. i'd rather see them work in a collegial fashion with general directors.

if those who represent primarily the interests of age group races and race directors show me that they have a proper answer for how to deal with olympic development, have the brightest and best ideas for the growth and husbanding of the sport, while also working in a collegial fashion with those of us in the business community, i'm prepared to throw my support foursquare behind them.

that's my agenda. if you want to ask me about any specific policies, i'm happy to answer.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman